Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 15:51:23 GMT -5

So Bob, do you believe that there are ideas which are wrong, and ideas which are right?

Yes, of course there are both right and wrong ideas.

Do you believe that right and wrong ideas are equally valuable, and equally worthy of protection?

What do you mean by "protection?" Ideas don't need protection. The people who come up with ideas need protection from tyrannical governments who historically have always tried to suppress them.

Would you treat Holocaust Denial the same as any correct and true idea? If so, why?

I would not treat the ideas the same. However, I would treat the people who put the ideas forth the same because everyone has the same Right of Freedom of Speech.

If I take away someone's Freedom of Speech because I find their ideas disgusting and repugnant, I create a precedent for them to take away my ideas in the future.

Bob

Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements?

If you yourself do not treat objectively correct ideas the same as you do objectively wrong ideas, then why are you advocating that the law should treat them the same way?

Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 19:27:59 GMT -5

What do you mean by "protection?" Ideas don't need protection. The people who come up with ideas need protection from tyrannical governments who historically have always tried to suppress them.

I would not treat the ideas the same. However, I would treat the people who put the ideas forth the same because everyone has the same Right of Freedom of Speech.

If I take away someone's Freedom of Speech because I find their ideas disgusting and repugnant, I create a precedent for them to take away my ideas in the future.

Bob

Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements?

LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage?

If you yourself do not treat objectively correct ideas the same as you do objectively wrong ideas, then why are you advocating that the law should treat them the same way?

I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't).

Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 19:45:47 GMT -5

Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements?

LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage?

If you yourself do not treat objectively correct ideas the same as you do objectively wrong ideas, then why are you advocating that the law should treat them the same way?

I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. I have no power to ban ideas. And if I did have the power to ban ideas, I wouldn't use it! Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't).

Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 7:00:41 GMT -5

LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage?

Evidently you would need to only charge those people with enforcement who have objectively correct beliefs concerning this issue.

I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. I have no power to ban ideas. And if I did have the power to ban ideas, I wouldn't use it!

So you are saying that we should not make your ideas the basis of government and legislation; that libertarian is only valid as an ideology for individuals whose decisions do not affect other people very much?

Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't).

Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 10:32:29 GMT -5

LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage?

Evidently you would need to only charge those people with enforcement who have objectively correct beliefs concerning this issue.

So then you would only hire people who agree with you that the ideas you personally don't like have to be suppressed? Is that what you are saying?

I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. I have no power to ban ideas. And if I did have the power to ban ideas, I wouldn't use it!

So you are saying that we should not make your ideas the basis of government and legislation; that libertarian is only valid as an ideology for individuals whose decisions do not affect other people very much?

No. I didn't say that at all. I said that I personally distinguish between what I consider to be good ideas and bad ideas but that I would not ban ideas i thought were bad even if I had the power to do so.

And the government should do the same thing! Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot ban ideas just because some bureaucrat doesn't like them.

Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't).

My point is that the law already recognizes a difference between correct speech and lies: The former cannot be slanderous speech, only the latter can; you can only defame someone if you are incorrect.

In this instance, the government decides what is correct and what is incorrect - by your own argument, based on whatever the dominant government ideology is, since as you are implying with your argument, the government is incapable of making decisions based on objective truth.

If you were correct, then people inundiated with the government could not be subject to libel cases because the government deems everything they say correct. So, do you think crimes against libel and slander should be struck from law books for restricting free speech?

Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:26:44 GMT -5

My point is that the law already recognizes a difference between correct speech and lies: The former cannot be slanderous speech, only the latter can; you can only defame someone if you are incorrect.

In this instance, the government decides what is correct and what is incorrect - by your own argument, based on whatever the dominant government ideology is, since as you are implying with your argument, the government is incapable of making decisions based on objective truth.

If you were correct, then people inundiated with the government could not be subject to libel cases because the government deems everything they say correct. So, do you think crimes against libel and slander should be struck from law books for restricting free speech?

Libel and Slander are subject to CIVIL penalties, not CRIMINAL penalties. Libel and Slander are not "crimes."

"Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages."

No I didn't. You made that up. And your link just goes to the top of the thread, not to a specific post. It would be of great help if you could actually cut and past the actual words you allege I wrote.

So basically you are saying that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in? Is that your view?

If it is, then you realize that you can be prosecuted under Austria's blasphemy laws?

And what would your defense be? After all, you posted that people who deny Climate Change should not be allowed to do so.

Evidently you consider the truth content of a message irrelevant when considering how we should deal with it as a society.

Red Herring. You avoided the question entirely.

Is it your view that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in?